It was a presentation that would have made Steve Jobs proud. Just as Jobs knew how to stun the public and the press with a shiny new Apple product, Apple lawyer Harold McElhinny was smooth and direct in his presentation. Using big bold slides, and a bit of video to show off the best features, he laid out a simple version of smartphone history that put his client at the center: Apple came first. Imitators like Samsung followed. And now it's time for them to pay up.

How did Samsung move from the phones it was making in 2006 to the sleek, large-screen smartphones it was selling in 2010, asked McElhinny? "To answer that question, we have to go back to January 9, 2007," he told the jury. "That's when Steve Jobs introduced the iPhone at the Macworld conference."

McElhinny's monologue, a bit over an hour, was like a sleek Apple marketing pitch, with legal language seamlessly mixed in. The speech was the first building block of Apple's giant patent case against Samsung. The iconic Cupertino company wants more than $2.5 billion in damages from its Korean competitor, as well as injunctions that would kick Samsung's products off the market.

At times McElhinny waxed rhapsodic about his client, its innovative culture, and the products it created.

"At the same time Mr. Jobs introduced the iPhone, he warned his competitors that he had filed for patent protection on more than 200 new inventions in the phone," he said. "Over 200 new inventions—let's think about what that means. It's about creating... a user experience so unique and intuitive that it just feels right."

Apple is a company that "always has its eye on the future," McElhinny continued: "What the world needed, and it didn't have, was a phone that had the capabilities of a computer. Apple designed an entirely new product—a phone, a Web browser, and a music player. It was a phone design that the world had never seen. Physical keyboards would become a thing of the past. It required an entirely new hardware system. It required an entirely new user interface. That interface had to become completely intuitive."

Critics had hailed the iPhone, too, McElhinny said. Slides flashed by—The New York Times and Wired lavishing praise on the iPhone, Time calling it the 2007 Invention of the Year.

"What struck me about the iPhone was—there's no manual," said McElhinny. "You had to walk into the store, pick it up, and get drawn in to use the device. If that didn't happen immediately—you'd never buy it."

Then McElhinny inveighed against Samsung, the accused copier.

"Apple's competitors immediately recognized the impact of the new device," said McElhinny. "Samsung was faced with a choice: it could come up with its own designs, and beat Apple fairly in the marketplace. Or it could copy Apple."

And copy Apple it did, he said, producing sleek black-faced phones with big screens and using the same user-interface features that Apple had patented, like a "bounce back" feature for scrolling and a method of navigating screens with a quick double tap.

"At the highest corporate levels, Samsung decided to copy every element of the iPhone," said McElhinny.

The press had noticed, too. "Samsung Vibrant rips off iPhone 3G design," read one headline that was shown to the jury.

Next up in the Apple-approved history: the iPad. "Can you believe the iPad has only been around for two years?" said a briefly awed McElhinny, going on to call it "magical" and "revolutionary," echoing the bubbly headlines of 2010 and Apple's own marketing.

Quick videos demonstrated the features of each of Apple's three utility patents in the case. One was over the "rubber band" feature, where documents or images snap back into place when a finger pushes them off a touchscreen; another covered the idea of allowing a double-tap to navigate a screen without zooming out. The company alleges those features popped up in Samsung phones shortly after being patented by Apple.

The jury should reject any suggestion that the user-interface features Apple designers cooked up are unimportant, warned McElhinny. The patented features were important so that customers could "intuitively" use the devices. "My four-year-old granddaughter taught herself to use an iPad," he said. "If these were trivial, why did they show up in your [Samsung's] customer surveys, and why did you copy them?"

McElhinny ended with a promise that the jury will see the story in Samsung's own documents. Those documents—acquired during painstaking discovery and translated into English—show more than 100 instances where Samsung altered its phones and tablets to achieve the goal of making them "identical to Apple products," he said.

The attorney accused Samsung of profiting enormously from its strategy. Samsung has made more than 22 million infringing phones, which have earned more than $2 billion in profit, according to Apple's calculations.

Samsung's defense: it's competition, not infringement

Within a few minutes of his opening, Verhoeven was wheeling through slides of patent designs from Japan and Korea that reached back to 2006, 2005, even back to 2004—years before the iPhone was launched.

"This is the Korean '547 patent," said Verhoeven. "Again, you've got a large rectangular screen."

Apple's products may be successful, Verhoeven noted, but that doesn't mean the company was first to create these innovations—they're not true inventions. "There's a distinction between commercial success and inventing something."

Same story with the iPad. Verhoeven showed computer tablets with similar forms stretching back to a 1994 tablet called the "Fiddler."

"They didn't invent a large touchscreen with rounded corners," said Verhoeven. That had been made before—it's just that it had taken years for the market to demand such large screens.

"We're not saying it wasn't a great product," said Verhoeven. "It was inspiring to everyone, including the competition."

Cell phones evolved. "As functionality increased, the entire industry moved towards screens that are much, much larger," he said. "Nobody's going to want to watch a movie on a tiny little screen."

"Is that infringement?" he continued. "No, the evidence is going to show, that's competition. It's providing the consumer what the consumer wants. If the consumer wants a phone with a large screen and touch face, Samsung provides that. It's not some Johnny-come-lately developing knockoffs. It's creating technology that is what people want."

Samsung makes all kinds of phones, Verhoeven said. Phones that slide, "folder-type" flip phones, and "bar type" phones with big screens that look more similar to Apple's products.

"Unlike Apple, that basically makes just one kind of phone, Samsung makes all kinds of phones for all kinds of people."

Verhoeven also touted his client's history of innovation—a pioneer in the mobile business since 1991, Samsung employs more than 20,000 engineers and has invested $35 billion in research and development just from 2005 to 2010, he said. The company is no "copyist," Verhoeven said. "Samsung is a major technology company, doing its own innovation."

The presentation was a sometimes choppy follow-up to McElhinny's smooth attack a few minutes before. Verhoeven read many slides directly and seemed to repeat his themes; a video had volume that jumped up and down wildly, and even stopped playing at one point.

A stressful first day with a smaller jury

It wasn't just Samsung's strained presentation; the day had a stressful feeling from the start. The hallway was packed with dozens of reporters, lawyers, and observers, who filed into the court minutes before arguments began.

Stress was the first thing the judge wanted to talk about, in fact. One of the jurors was feeling stressed, to the point of having panic attacks, said US District Judge Lucy Koh. The situation with the juror's pay wasn't made clear by her boss, and she wanted off the jury. Koh checked that the parties had no objections and then let her go, turning the ten-person jury into a panel of nine.

Before opening arguments even started, stress turned into sparks, as a Samsung lawyer beseeched Koh to kick out one of Apple's slides.

"Your Honor, I've been practicing 36 years, and I've never begged the court," said John Quinn, name partner at Quinn Emanuel, Samsung's law firm. "I'm begging the court now to hear this issue—"

"I've reviewed what you filed yesterday," said Koh, testily. "I heard argument on this yesterday. Mr. Quinn, please, we've had three reconsiderations on this."

"Can I ask the court for some explanation?" said Quinn.

"Mr. Quinn, don't make me sanction you, please. You've had two, if not three, if not four opportunities to brief this."

"Can I change the subject?" asked Quinn.

"No," said Koh. "I want you to sit down. Please."

Openings began shortly after that and went past the lunch break. They were followed by the first witness, Apple designer Christopher Stringer, listed as an inventor on many of Apple's patents. Stringer, a lanky middle-aged man with shoulder-length gray hair and a goatee, didn't take the stand until almost 3:00. The iPhone was an "icon," he said simply, "the most beautiful of our designs."

He was even-keeled, but the designer didn't mince words. "We've been ripped off, it's plain to see," he said. "By Samsung in particular."

After Stringer stepped down, Apple VP Philip Schiller took the stand for just a few minutes. The trial now takes a break until Friday, when Schiller will re-take the stand.

It is normal and healthy for competitors to release products that challenge each other. That is what drives companies to excel and innovate and we benefit. Samsung is going to produce competing products, just as a car company brings out a new model to compete is a market space against a competitor. I am thankful that my iPhone is as good as it is because of this.

The difference being that Samsung is leveraging Apples R&D and design work to obtain an unfair advantage in the marketplace.

These laws exist for a reason. "Just let the market sort it out" doesnt work if it encourages companies not to bother innovating.

Yes. These laws exist for a reason. That reason is not to create virtual property.

You are arguing based on a false premise that is polar opposition to the original intent of the relevant laws.

What?

Lanham Act "contains the federal statutes governing trademark law in the United States", specifically pertaining to Apple's distinctive products which:

Quote:

consist of any trade-mark [trademark], symbol, label, package, configuration of goods, name, word, slogan, phrase, surname, geographical name, numeral, device, any matter that as a whole is not functional, or any combination of any of the foregoing, but such mark must be capable of distinguishing the applicant's goods or services

So the laws are in fact intended to protect a company's logos, artwork, packaging, icons, physical appearance, and ad copy so long as it is uniquely capable of distinguishing the product.

To be fair, and this is pushing the limits of the law, Apple is claiming an extreme lack of ornamentation as trade dress (as evinced by the featureless MacBook Pros and Airs, iPhones, iPads, and iMacs).

Outside of that claim, however, are the icons used in their devices, the style of packaging which contains a single picture of an active device, and nothing else, on a black or white unornamented box, with the device being the first thing presented to the user on opening the box.

After 7 pages of comments the trends can be summarized thusly:"Darn sneaky slant-eyes done stole more great US innovations".Apple fanbois and / or republicans."Teh evul US corporation is abusing teh broken US legal / patent system to crush legit competitors / make more obscene profits".Apple haters and / or democrats."That no doubt overpaid legal snake can't even get his facts straight, rest TL;DR".Pedants and / or me"Groan, TL;DR - not more US legal tech patent articles"Everyone else (but boy, does it generate hits!)"Summary of comments so far"*Me

Simply total the comments in each category to get a scientifically valid prediction of the trial outcome.You're welcome

I have to hope that Apple don't actually believe that the iPhone was some kind of miracle that only they should be able to make, ever. Rather than a well polished and ahead of the game smartphone.

Samsung isn't passing off and they aren't making direct copies. So what the FUCK is this case about? Are Apple seriously suggesting we should live in a world where if you want a black rounded rectangle you have to buy from Apple, but a white one - well, that you can buy elsewhere.

I had a samsung phone once. It was so innovative, it required its own proprietary charger, got half an hour of talk time, and threatened to burn your hand while doing so. Pitiful performance for 2008.

When I had a serious problem with my next phone, verizon offered me a newer samsung as replacement. Still the same proprietary connector even after the EU microUSB mandate had gone live. Herp derp INNOVATIVE hurr hurr durr. So yeah, I turned that down and spent a lot more on an LG, which is NaN times worth it (samsung causes a divide-by-zero).

OTOH, android isn't such a huge profit generator as Apple thinks. The android users I know have gone to iPhones or want them, the only repeat buyer has had his iphone 4S since launch day (after running through 5 other smartphones the prior 2 years), and they're so "successful" that google publishes "activations" instead of users because they desperately need to inflate the numbers.

Samsung isn't passing off and they aren't making direct copies. So what the FUCK is this case about?

Apple disagree, that's what this case is about.

pappypappy wrote:

Are Apple seriously suggesting we should live in a world where if you want a black rounded rectangle you have to buy from Apple.

No, they're not suggesting that. The "sue because it's a rectangle" is 1 part in 100 of the issue.

That doesn't mean that I agree or disagree with Apple case but people dismissing all of the stuff Apple is bringing to the table as "duh rectangle" really don't have a grip on what this is about. There is a reason Apple is suing Samsung and not Windows 7 phones.

I have to hope that Apple don't actually believe that the iPhone was some kind of miracle that only they should be able to make, ever. Rather than a well polished and ahead of the game smartphone.

Samsung isn't passing off and they aren't making direct copies. So what the FUCK is this case about?

You would think you would do some research, yourself, then, if you don't know what the case is about.

TheVerge published the claims last April, so ignorance on your part is a little bit embarrassing.

Quote:

Are Apple seriously suggesting we should live in a world where if you want a black rounded rectangle you have to buy from Apple, but a white one - well, that you can buy elsewhere.

This whole case is a massive pile of bullshit. Koh should be ashamed.

No, at best it's only 50% or so BS.

The first claim, trade dress infringement, is not entirely about black rounded rectangle. Accepting that Samsung has equal ownership of that idea, Apple still has aspects of the claim to itself, specifically:1) Colorful icons with rounded corners (specifically the icon style, which differs from Android's icons, and which Samsung modified to more closely, allegedly, mimic Apple's)2) The Springboard, which has a specific look and color that, again, Samsung allegedly mimicked3) The above two claims specifically combined with the large black glass touchscreen design4) The box-art style5) The box itself6) The packaging inside the box

You cannot pick out a claim without rejecting all the claims, and so long as Apple can show they had a distinctive look circa 2007 prior to Samsung's use of it in 2010 (which is pretty easy actually, given the multiple published "unboxing" blogs), that claim is more or less a home run.

Claim 2 is a straight defense of 3 registered trade dress elements that Apple filed for in 10/2007, and all Samsung can do is show that they had an identical design in 2007 (which actually doesn't exist as far as I can tell). The F700, which Samsung is so eager to use in court that they angered Judge Koh, doesn't actually meet the first trade dress registration because it's icons are monochromatic instead; it certainly meets the other two claims however.

Hey, I have an idea! Angry Birds is now Angry Monkeys. I'll just copy the game and change the animals. After all what's original about a video game where you throw and break stuff for points? I'll even sell it at half price for the benefit of consumers, which in your words justifies my actions!

Hilariously ironic.

Angry Birds is 100% original in the same way that Apple's products are 100% original, so it really is a spot-on comparison.

What Apple *did* create was a huge market for such devices, a market other companies are all too happy to cater to.

Unfortunately for Apple, you can't patent a "market". At least I hope not.

That doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. By saying apple created the smartphone market your essentially agreeing apple invented the smartphone. Apple created a product not a market. The extent to which this was a new invention and the extent to which it defined the market is what's up for debate.

There are two issues here. Did Apple "invent" something new with the iPhone and can they protect that legally. The first, is an easy yes to for anyone taking the question seriously. Apple took pieces that already existed them and polished them into a device that for the first time, people actually used. That's an invention. Saying otherwise is like saying a watch isn't an invention because clocks already existed. Yes that line can get fuzzy but the iPhone crossed it.

If you have any further doubt just picture the history books in 100 years. Any doubts the iPhone is going be the smartphone pictured? I don't think so.

My twins are almost 22 months old. Whether with the iPhone or iPad, they have learnt to bring it out of sleep, slide to unlock, swipe to the pages where their apps are installed and launch them. And go back to the home screen to launch another app or eventually to put it to sleep if they're done with it. And these two have been at this ever since they could walk a year ago.

so they can only do this with the iPhone/iPad and not an android tablet?That's really "magical"

It's just to show that the basic themes of rounded corners and one button at the bottom wasn't just copied wholesale after the iphone came out. It debuted at the 3GSM World Conference in early Feb 2007.

So your proof that Samsung didn't copy Apple is to show off a phone that was released a month after the iPhone was first shown off. Brilliant!

Reading through any number of comments here and elsewhere makes it clear to me that many commentators don't actually create product. They don't go through the process of harnessing materials and technology to create designs that empower people. There are thousands and thousands of decisions that relate to the tradeoffs that has to be made to bring a product to market. The issue isn't that there weren't smartphones before that did many of the same things that the iPhone did in 2007. But there were many design decisions from the very small to the big fundamental tradeoffs that Apple chose to put together to make the iPhone such a difference in 2007 and on. The issue is that after the iPhone, after people really took to the iPhone, that the engineers and designers at other companies started to choose what Apple chose to do very often.

The only way for Apple to protect their product from that kind of copying is rather imperfect - the patent system and specifically design patents. In my mind, it isn't even a particular design of a particular part, but rather, the sum total of all the design elements that makes the iPhone uniquely the iPhone. After 2007, so many competing products had so many elements that are now just like the iPhone... so many more than there used to be. Can Apple protect themselves through the patent system from such copying? I don't know, and I'm not sure that they should be able to do so at the individual patent level even if I do believe that overall, Samsung chose to copy Apple in some unfair kind of way. I just don't know that the legal system really protects Apple in this regard, or should given the current patent system.

I have owned any number of Nokia Symbian phones, including the E61 and E70 which sported the first WebKit browsers. Nominally, they had more features, more capability than a 2007, or even a 2008 iPhone. That wasn't the point. They sucked in so many ways that the simple act of looking up a sushi restaurant and calling to see if they were still open after the 2007 WWDC keynote in San Francisco meant 2 full phone restarts and lots of app crashing. Google Maps for Symbian really sucked back then, and the RAM usage for WebKit browser really taxed those phones. That was relatively state of the art in smartphones in 2007. The Windows smartphones I used weren't much better in functionality and in UI, they were often even worse. Did people really forget what smartphones were like before the iPhone, or are you all just too blinded by Apple hate?

Plus, think of the mentality of the upper management at Samsung. Apple is one of Samsung's largest customers. They collaborated on any number of projects, partnering to create products by sharing technology and design. Samsung chose to mimic the iPhone so closely... is that not a huge screw you to one of their largest customers? Imagine the gall of that move and how that was received at Apple.

Samsung obviously made phones before the Apple iPhone and had they had their own phone ambitions. I'm betting they thought that Apple would remain a niche player, like a Vertu or Prada phone. So they figured they'd work with Apple, but when they saw the iPhone in its production form, when they saw the reception given to the iPhone, they probably though *crap* - we provided that technology and we didn't come up with the iPhone. This changes everything. So the short term plan is to mimic the iPhone, which is the modus operandi of many Korean engineering/design teams - copy first, then improve.

It's just to show that the basic themes of rounded corners and one button at the bottom wasn't just copied wholesale after the iphone came out. It debuted at the 3GSM World Conference in early Feb 2007.

So your proof that Samsung didn't copy Apple is to show off a phone that was released a month after the iPhone was first shown off. Brilliant!

Actually, yeah, it is. There's no way they could have developed another product and had it ready for launch in the space of 30 days. They must have already been working on that design before Apple released the iPhone.

"McElhinny showed jurors an internal Samsung product analysis which said the iPhone's hardware was "easy to copy." Another document prepared by a Samsung executive said the company was in a "crisis of design" due to the iPhone."

Why did Apple wait until 2007 to release the IPOD? Because prior 2007 figure touch screen technology was very bad (primarily resistive). Touch screens that allowed for fingers only registered 1 finger at a time, and were usually designed first as stylus screens (hense the styluses). When apple launched, capacitive touch screens started becoming more economical to produce and put in a small form factor.

Because of the bad touch screens, typing was a real issue. Thats why most of those older phones had keyboards, and big buttons (using the touch screen was difficult. It was only really used for starting apps and click on things with the stylus. Any repetitive "typing" was a pain). Thats why you see weird and different designs. They didn't sold the problem and keep trying new things to get a workable phone. All those phones from that generation had a problem.

With capacitive screens, you didn't need buttons because the touch screens were good enough to identify fingure presses that it was now possible to use software buttons. Hense why all the post iPhone samsung phones are mainly screen.

You need to look at the big picture.(1) Capacitive screens become cheaper to impliment.(2) Apple decides they want capacitive screens, other companies only use capacitve screens for the expensive models(3) iPhone is one of the first phones that most of the public sees that has capcitive screens. They think its amazing(4) other phone companies see the demand for capacitive screens and put them in more and more phones.

Apple just did it first and marketed it well. If apple didn't exist, those phones would still look like that. Its just the natural evolution of phones. (1) recangular because it fits in the hand better(2) rounded corners so they don't get damaged and dulled. also looks nicer(3)big screen because we can. who is going to make a touch screen phone and only have the top have a touch screen.

Perhaps then you would fully comprehend what it is that your advocating exactly.

I actually do have an Apple II that I bought back when it was new. Don't tell me that it was not original, but was instead a verbatim copycat knock off of something else. What I am advocating is punitive damages against Samsung for their blatant disrespect for honorable business practice. Incase comprehension escapes you in this instance I'll clarify.

Quote: "At the highest corporate levels, Samsung decided to copy every element of the iPhone,"That means that Samsung allegedly ignored and defied utility patents, design patents, trademark icons and trade dress registrations. Undoubtedly Samsung would have squealed just as loudly, had the tables been reversed. Is your tolerance so benign and your sense of fair play so absent that you condone such chaotic behavior?

When it comes to hardware, I'd say the Galaxy S and Galaxy SII were pretty egregious, and I'd point to the big fat home button as evidence. The Android standard at the time wasn't to have a big central home button at all. Maybe on the Galaxy S it was a holdover from previous designs that may have predated the iPhone, but it was silly for the Galaxy SII to have it... except to look like an iPhone.

You realize your argument contradicts itself, right?

You admit that "maybe on the Galaxy S [the home button] was a holdover from previous designs that may have predated the iPhone," then go on to say the Galaxy SII only had a big central home button because they were trying to look like an iPhone.

If it was already extant on pre-iPhone designs does it make more sense that they kept it on the GS and GSII because it was already their design or because they were copying the iPhone? Occam's razor says it's the former, not the latter, nevermind that the latter reason makes no sense whatsoever.

Moreover, Samsung has a history of not adhering strictly to Android's recommended button layouts, and instead using their own, potentially for brand differentiation among a sea of standard-looking Android devices, e.g. having a larger central home button instead of the standard pre-ICS 4-button row.

Even on devices that had a standard 4-button row, Samsung generally didn't put them in the same order as other Android devices. On the Galaxy S III, they have a central physical home button and soft-buttons for back and the app switcher on either side, all independent of screen real estate, while almost every other Android manufacturer is using the standard 3 soft-buttons taking up part of the screen real estate instead. This is just par for the course for them.

I have no love for Apple or iPhones but I'd like to be sitting on that jury. I'd like to see Samsung fry in its own oil.

For What? Apple are the ones who are being whiners. Let's make it so the iPhone is the only smartphone on the market and charge whatever we want ... or else!

Yeah, thanks for restating the obvious. We know Apple are the "whiners" they are the ones who are suing for being wronged. Why would anyone whine when they can copy and rip off Apple? No one says there shouldn't be other smart phones (in fact sometimes i get the feeling phones are smarter than people). All they are saying is: invent your own design & experience rather than copying someone else's entire experience.

"The presentation was a sometimes choppy follow-up to McElhinny's smooth attack a few minutes before. Verhoeven read many slides directly and seemed to repeat his themes; a video had volume that jumped up and down wildly, and stopped playing at one point."

I'm sorry... but this reads like a fanboy's argument. The inference is that just because a lawyer re-iterated a few of his themes, and that because the volume of one of the lawyer's videos had jumped up and down, he somehow has a weak argument.

Trust me, I'm not a 'fanboy.' I call 'em as I see 'em. One opening came off smoother than the other yesterday, and I included that observation in my piece. I'm not the only one in court who noticed.

"What the world needed, and it didn't have, was a phone that had the capabilities of a computer. Apple designed an entirely new product—a phone, a Web browser, and a music player."

OK, that's a load of shit right there.First off, it's not the first phone with a computer, a web browser and let alone a music player.

NONE of those statements are true, there's plenty of phones out there that already had this functionality and even used keyboards.

All Samsung lawyers have to prove now, is that computers in phones not only already existed, but were INEVITABLE because of miniaturization advancements.Just like it's not hard to predict that as soon as computers get small enough to fit inside our bodies in some way, it WILL happen. I wonder if apple will then say they invented the "iPill" and no one else had thought of it before.

Apple didn't invent the touch screen UI either, which is what you could argue set the iPhone apart from those other phones. a touchscreen UI existed well before that. Hell, i'm pretty fucking sure that Microsoft's "surface" hit the marketplace well before Apple even decided if it was going to ever make a phone.

I won't disagree with the fact that Apple has helped popularize existing technology, but they have never, ever been innovators.

Even the original Ipod was far from being an innovation. All it was is a device that had a computer small enough to make a portable mp3 player. RIO had already marketed a portable mp3 player, but of course they weren't the ones that popularized it. Of course good luck trying to convince people that's all they were, for them it was "magic".Techies on the other hand knew very well all it was:A computer that was portable because of advancements in miniaturization. that apple had nothing to do with.

Apple's claims are almost as absurd as getting Intel in the stand and claiming that everyone that is using miniaturization is copying Intel's Moore's law. (oh shit, i just gave them a terrible idea...)

What Apple *did* create was a huge market for such devices, a market other companies are all too happy to cater to.

Unfortunately for Apple, you can't patent a "market". At least I hope not.

I think what they did, what no one thought was possible, was that they strong armed a cell carrier into finally offering a data plan that wasn't so insanely expensive to be useless to normal users, as well as allowing you to actually download useful stuff with it. The rest (a real browser, email on your phone, etc.) was just stuff everyone wanted but that was useless given the costs of owning it. (And now that we all have had and like it, prices are going back to where they were in 2007 again).

All Samsung lawyers have to prove now, is that computers in phones not only already existed, but were INEVITABLE because of miniaturization advancements.Just like it's not hard to predict that as soon as computers get small enough to fit inside our bodies in some way, it WILL happen. I wonder if apple will then say they invented the "iPill" and no one else had thought of it before.

They also have to prove they didn't copy Apple, which is the other half of the battle; trademark, trade dress, and design patents.

Quote:

Apple's claims are almost as absurd as getting Intel in the stand and claiming that everyone that is using miniaturization is copying Intel's Moore's law. (oh shit, i just gave them a terrible idea...)

Blackberry and Palm's products strengthen Apple's case, imo. Windows Phone does it even more. They show that a smartphone can have a UI that doesn't look remarkably like Apple's.

And where are those companies or how popular are those phones now? That's like arguing that Yugo showed you don't need to have high crash ratings, a powerful engine, etc, to build a car, so you don't have to follow everyone else in the industry.

Blackberry and Palm's products strengthen Apple's case, imo. Windows Phone does it even more. They show that a smartphone can have a UI that doesn't look remarkably like Apple's.

And where are those companies or how popular are those phones now? That's like arguing that Yugo showed you don't need to have high crash ratings, a powerful engine, etc, to build a car, so you don't have to follow everyone else in the industry.

Wrong analogy. Crash ratings and powerful engine are functional as opposed to decorational. Half of Apple's claims are trademark/dress, which are ornamental as opposed to functional.

A correct analogy on your part would be, "That's like arguing that Honda showed you don't need (ornamental) ports, fins, scoops, spoilers, or stripes to build a car, so you don't have to follow anyone else in the industry".

Which, of course, disproves your point. You don't have to follow anyone else, ornamentally, to succeed.

"The presentation was a sometimes choppy follow-up to McElhinny's smooth attack a few minutes before. Verhoeven read many slides directly and seemed to repeat his themes; a video had volume that jumped up and down wildly, and stopped playing at one point."

I'm sorry... but this reads like a fanboy's argument. The inference is that just because a lawyer re-iterated a few of his themes, and that because the volume of one of the lawyer's videos had jumped up and down, he somehow has a weak argument.

You're missing the point. a Jury is rarely swayed by technical arguments and legal nits (which they typically can't understand.) At the end of the day, it's the attorney who is able to tell the best story that usually wins.

From the report, it sounds like Apple's attorney is the better presenter/storyteller. This skill is of critical importance and not to be underestimated.

Blackberry and Palm's products strengthen Apple's case, imo. Windows Phone does it even more. They show that a smartphone can have a UI that doesn't look remarkably like Apple's.

And where are those companies or how popular are those phones now? That's like arguing that Yugo showed you don't need to have high crash ratings, a powerful engine, etc, to build a car, so you don't have to follow everyone else in the industry.

Wrong analogy. Crash ratings and powerful engine are functional as opposed to decorational. Half of Apple's claims are trademark/dress, which are ornamental as opposed to functional.

A correct analogy on your part would be, "That's like arguing that Honda showed you don't need (ornamental) ports, fins, scoops, spoilers, or stripes to build a car, so you don't have to follow anyone else in the industry".

Which, of course, disproves your point. You don't have to follow anyone else, ornamentally, to succeed.

You still didnt' answer my question... Palm is dead, and rumors are circling about Blackberry nearing bankruptcy, so I don't see how those two companies showed anything, other than how they failed to adapt.

Also, how are the features described in the phone's above decorational and not functional? Minimalist design of user-facing controls is absolutely functional. As is the equidistance borders and rounded corners, as is the full sized screen.

And getting back to cars... American carmakers thought you had to ornamentally follow to succeed. In 1986 Buick changed the design of their front grill to have a reverse slope, exactly the same as BMW. They also ditched the standing hood ornamant, and made it a flat surface mounted ornament, just like BMW. Cadillac did the same with the Cimarron in the same time frame.

As far as game changers go... Chrysler made the minivan in 1984. Did you notice everyone followed suit? Did you see Chrysler suing GM, Honda, Toyota, Nissan, etc? You can say that GM made the first front wheel drive car, but now that everyone else makes FWD cars too, should GM sue them as well?

Blackberry and Palm's products strengthen Apple's case, imo. Windows Phone does it even more. They show that a smartphone can have a UI that doesn't look remarkably like Apple's.

And where are those companies or how popular are those phones now? That's like arguing that Yugo showed you don't need to have high crash ratings, a powerful engine, etc, to build a car, so you don't have to follow everyone else in the industry.

Wrong analogy. Crash ratings and powerful engine are functional as opposed to decorational. Half of Apple's claims are trademark/dress, which are ornamental as opposed to functional.

A correct analogy on your part would be, "That's like arguing that Honda showed you don't need (ornamental) ports, fins, scoops, spoilers, or stripes to build a car, so you don't have to follow anyone else in the industry".

Which, of course, disproves your point. You don't have to follow anyone else, ornamentally, to succeed.

You still didnt' answer my question... Palm is dead, and rumors are circling about Blackberry nearing bankruptcy, so I don't see how those two companies showed anything, other than how they failed to adapt.

I did, actually. I showed that Honda succeeded in making cars despite not copying the famous trends started by Buick, Cadillac, and Ford in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. I proved your analogy wrong as answer as to how a company can succeed without copying a leader.

Quote:

Also, how are the features described in the phone's above decorational and not functional? Minimalist design of user-facing controls is absolutely functional. As is the equidistance borders and rounded corners, as is the full sized screen.

The post you replied to specifically mentioned "UI that doesn't look remarkably like Apple's", which I specifically interpreted to imply icons and artwork such as the Apple trademarked iTunes logo, iPhone app icon, page markers, springboard colors, etc. In what part of this analogy/discussion did we bring up the <i>other</i> trade dress/mark claims? Are you trying to change the subject of this particular thread?

Quote:

And getting back to cars... American carmakers thought you had to ornamentally follow to succeed. In 1986 Buick changed the design of their front grill to have a reverse slope, exactly the same as BMW. They also ditched the standing hood ornamant, and made it a flat surface mounted ornament, just like BMW. Cadillac did the same with the Cimarron in the same time frame.

While Honda proceeded to make small, cheap, fuel efficient, and ultimately much more reliable cars instead of copying ornamentation.

Quote:

As far as game changers go... Chrysler made the minivan in 1984. Did you notice everyone followed suit? Did you see Chrysler suing GM, Honda, Toyota, Nissan, etc? You can say that GM made the first front wheel drive car, but now that everyone else makes FWD cars too, should GM sue them as well?

So back to the subject of copying: The issue for half the suit is trademark, trade dress, and design patents. Copying a successful product without infringing is the fine line that you have to balance. Mark/dress/design is all about ornamentation and not utility. If Chrysler thought that GM/Honda/Toyota/Nissan were infringing on Chrysler's trademarks (their iconography, logo, grille design, etc), then Chrysler would be obliged to sue or lose their trademarks.

I can't think of a single minivan that infringed on Chrysler's trademarks or dress in this case.

Personally, I wouldn't because anyone who did five seconds worth of Googling would find out that FWD cars had been manufactured for over seven decades by the time that GM started introducing their models.

I wouldn't want to be seen as someone too lazy to do even the most trivial amount of research, but that's just me, YMMV.

Personally, I wouldn't because anyone who did five seconds worth of Googling would find out that FWD cars had been manufactured for over seven decades by the time that GM started introducing their models.

I wouldn't want to be seen as someone too lazy to do even the most trivial amount of research, but that's just me, YMMV.

ROTFLMFAO. It me roughly 20 minutes to stop laughing so hard so I could actually read the article.

After the iPhone touch based smartphones became the norm.

Mobile Apps and AppsStore are now to the norm.

5 years after the iPhone sucked up 60%+ of all mobile handset profits worldwide...

the former leader RIMM and Nokia are on the verge of bankrupcey with HTC to follow.

I'd say that changed everything.

From a business perspective, it's reasonable to say it caused a huge shift in the market. From a technological perspective, it was just one in a long series of small incremental steps.

I would actually be surprised if any of the major phone manufacturers weren't at least internally considering touchscreen-only designs similar to the iPhone prior to the iPhone announcement. Why didn't they release phones like that earlier? Who knows. Maybe their marketing people thought customers preferred physical keyboards. Maybe they were working on releasing them, but they hadn't gotten them to market yet.

The technology had been gradually evolving to the point where such designs were feasible, so multiple companies seemingly "independently invented" the same thing around the same time. The reason is that it wasn't really much of an invention, it was just a fairly obvious possible combination of available technology.

What wasn't obvious (and where Apple deserves some credit) was whether or not people wanted a touchscreen-only device, and what sort of tradeoffs would be most appealing to customers (battery life vs full multitasking, etc). Apple was very good at figuring out what people wanted and making a complete package that satisfied the customer demands relatively well. Because of that aptitude, they sold a lot of phones and made a lot of money.

From a technological perspective, however, there wasn't really much that hadn't been done before. It may have been done before in a crappy implementation that people didn't like, and Apple may have done it better than their competition at the time, but that doesn't mean that Apple invented these technologies, nor does it mean that other companies should be forbidden from observing what the market wants and delivering that.

Apple took the risk of releasing a touch-only phone before it was clear that the market wanted one, and they were already rewarded for that risk by being first to market. They don't deserve patent protection on that though. Figuring out what the market wants and delivering it is good for business, but it's not (or at least shouldn't be) a patentable invention.